Out of the Box » Middlesex Countyhttp://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box
Notes from the Archives at The Library of VirginiaWed, 07 Dec 2016 12:48:31 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.1A Collection Within A Collection: Bounty Warrants Found In Chancery Causeshttp://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box/2016/03/09/a-collection-within-a-collection/
http://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box/2016/03/09/a-collection-within-a-collection/#commentsWed, 09 Mar 2016 14:00:58 +0000http://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box/?p=9074
Military bounty land warrants, given by individual states or the Federal Government to reward military service or encourage enlistment, have long been a useful resource for the genealogist, providing proof of service and establishing a person’s whereabouts during a particular time. The Library of Virginia’s chancery causes offer a little known but excellent avenue of exploration on this topic. By providing additional context, the chancery suits concerning bounty land create a broader understanding of the subject. Causes fall into three categories: contract disputes, estate disputes, and debt.

The interested parties were prominently mentioned in any disagreements where the land rights of the claimant were assigned, or sold. Heirs of the claimant were principal figures in chancery actions when the original claimant died and his heirs filed suit in Virginia for a fair distribution of the claimant’s real property. Much like causes involving debt, these suits resulted in the sale of the disputed property. Examples of both federal and state lands are noted—stretching well beyond the years of the original warrants—in Augusta, Fluvanna, Greensville, Halifax, Middlesex, Norfolk, and Prince Edward counties. Warrants include lands granted during the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812. In order to acquire the land, the federal warrant had to be surrendered for a patent—usually at a federal land office. With the establishment of a state … read more »

]]>
Military bounty land warrants, given by individual states or the Federal Government to reward military service or encourage enlistment, have long been a useful resource for the genealogist, providing proof of service and establishing a person’s whereabouts during a particular time. The Library of Virginia’s chancery causes offer a little known but excellent avenue of exploration on this topic. By providing additional context, the chancery suits concerning bounty land create a broader understanding of the subject. Causes fall into three categories: contract disputes, estate disputes, and debt.

The interested parties were prominently mentioned in any disagreements where the land rights of the claimant were assigned, or sold. Heirs of the claimant were principal figures in chancery actions when the original claimant died and his heirs filed suit in Virginia for a fair distribution of the claimant’s real property. Much like causes involving debt, these suits resulted in the sale of the disputed property. Examples of both federal and state lands are noted—stretching well beyond the years of the original warrants—in Augusta, Fluvanna, Greensville, Halifax, Middlesex, Norfolk, and Prince Edward counties. Warrants include lands granted during the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812. In order to acquire the land, the federal warrant had to be surrendered for a patent—usually at a federal land office. With the establishment of a state Land Office in 1779, Virginia developed its own system for granting claims. Because of the lengthy process of both proving service (known as the bounty warrant) and resolving disputes in court, few warrantees or their heirs actually obtained a patent for their land. By 1842, warrants were no longer restricted to military reserve lands.

Most causes refer to a specific warrant number and include details of the original warrantee’s service and the amount of acreage granted. What follows is a brief synopsis of causes discovered to date by the Library’s Local Records staff:

Augusta County,1814-060, John McClenechan v. Nester Harden: The defendant was awarded 3,000 acres by the colonial governor of Virginia for commanding a company on a “Cherokee expedition.” He then transferred and assigned this land in a contract dispute to the plaintiff in November 1773. The land is now part of West Virginia.

Augusta County, 1814-072, William Coleman v. David Richardson, etc.: Mentions 28,400 acres of land given to defendants for service during Braddock’s War (French and Indian War). The proclamation was made by governor in 1754 but the land was not granted until December 1773. The suit contains numerous copies of original Land Office warrants. It also discusses adjustments and the settling of claims to unpatented lands now in the states of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. The suit also contains lost localities and burned jurisdiction records.

Fluvanna County, 1856-003, Susan Moore v. Admr. of Samuel Clarke: Involves an estate dispute and mentions a land warrant of 80,000 acres granted by the federal government on 3 March 1855.

Greensville County, 1835-002, Dolly Fielding, widow, etc. v. Thomas Davis, etc.: The estate of Thomas Davis was in dispute. Warrant No. 7279, issued for 2,666 acres, was surrendered for scrip issued by the U.S. Treasury in lieu of the land. The scrip was sold to another individual. Davis was an ensign in the Virginia line of the Continental Army in Revolutionary War. His heirs lived in Georgia and Ohio.

Greensville County, 1853-011, Gdn. of Edmund M. Vick, etc. v. Edmund M. Vick by, etc.: The cause deals with the estate dispute of Hubbard Vick. Warrant No. 46871 refers to 80 acres of land issued on 25 December 1852. Vick was a private in Captain Pesend’s [Pacends] company of the Virginia Militia in the War of 1812.

Halifax County, 1857-057, Thomas W. Bradley v. Heirs of Catherine Bradley: Suit refers to Revolutionary War Bounty Land Warrant No. 65921 for 40 acres, issued to William Bradley, Sr., in 1852. He was a private in Captain Woodson’s Company. Upon his death, the warrant was transferred to his widow.

Halifax County, 1857-062, Widow of James Cole v. Heirs of James Cole: Involves an estate dispute and refers to Warrant No. 12365 issued on 21 November 1855.

Halifax County, 1858-047, Children of Abel Chandler by, etc. v. Infant of Able Chandler by, etc.: Pertains to Bounty Land Warrant No. 75455, issued by the federal government on 15 January 1858 for 160 acres of land. His heirs wanted to sell the warrant.

Halifax County, 1866-030, Heirs of Sharp Throckmorton v. Henry S. Throckmorton, etc.: An estate dispute pertaining to Land Warrant No. 15793 issued on 18 February1856 for 160 acres. Sharp Throckmorton was a private in Captain Medley’s Company during the War of 1812.

Halifax County, 1866-033, Heirs of Epahroditus Y. Wimbish v. Heirs of Epahroditus Y. Wimbish: An estate dispute mentioning Bounty Land Warrant No. 30930, issued on 29 April1856. Wimbish was a sergeant in Captain Walker’s Company during the War of 1812.

Halifax County, 1869-057, Exr. of Thomas Glass v. Admr. of Joannah Royster, widow: According to this estate dispute, John Royster was a private in Captain Davenport’s Company of the Virginia Militia in War of 1812. Bounty Land Warrant No. 52865 was issued for 80 acres of land on 22 September 1853.

Halifax County, 1870-091, Heir of William Murray v. Widow of William Murray, etc: This estate dispute involves Bounty Land Warrant No. 41687, issued on 31 December 1855 to William Murray. The warrant was for 120 acres of land. Murray served as a private in Captain Edward’s Company of the Virginia Militia in the War of 1812.

Halifax County, 1870-108, Admr. of William Franklin v. Widow of William Franklin, etc : Deals with Bounty Land Warrant No. 80121 for 40 acres, issued to William Franklin on 12 January 1853 for his service in the War of 1812. It was “necessary to sell land warrant for the purpose of paying the debts of William Franklin.”

Halifax County, 1870-135, Gdn. of Martha S. Cole v. Infant of William Cole by, etc.: Cause involves estate dispute which centers on 80 acre Land Bounty Warrant No. 47059. Issued on 6 January 1853 to William Cole, it referenced his service in the War of 1812 as a private in Captain Leigh’s Company.

Halifax County, 1870-143, Elisha Barksdale, Jr. v. Heirs of Johnston Farmer: Cause centers on 120 acre Bounty Land Warrant No. 40927 issued to Johnston Farmer on 29 December 1855. This warrant was purchased by the plaintiff from Farmer but was detained or miscarried and then Farmer passed away. The plaintiff was now suing his own heirs at law (nonresidents of Virginia.)

Halifax County, 1871-084, Nathaniel Dews v. Judethan Carter, Jr.: This contract dispute questions whether the plaintiff made a transfer and assignment of this bounty land warrant, comprised of 80 acres, to defendant. The defendant claimed no interest in land. Nathaniel Dews was a private in Captain Black’s Company of the Tennessee Militia in the War of 1812. His Warrant No. 10918 was issued on 7 November 1855.

Middlesex County, 1840-004, Philip T. Montague v. June E. Montague, infant: Agrandson was heir to a Revolutionary War claim of 1,333 acres of land. He wished to sell land. On or before July 1835, the warrant was on file in Land Office.

Norfolk County, 1841-002, Thomas Green v. Admx of Isaiah Harris, etc.: Deals with the issue of debt. The suit references the appointment of complainant to recover the bounty land and half pay of William Hoffler, a captain in the Revolutionary War’s First Regiment.

Norfolk County, 1856-017, Mary Harris, etc. v. Robert B. Bagby, etc. and Robert B. Bagby vs. Frederick Vincent, etc.: The cause involves allowing by power of attorney a moiety on land bounty warrants numbers 9093-9095, for the services of their ancestor Simon Harris, a surgeon in the Virginia State Navy during the Revolutionary War. Warrant No. 9093 totals 3000 acres and Warrants Nos. 9094 and 9095 total 1500 acres each. Bagby files an injunction against one of the defendants in second suit, Wilson, from issuing or delivering land warrants to other defendants in suit.

Prince Edward County, 1805-009, Bird Price, etc. v. Widow of Benjamin Lawson, etc.: A contract dispute centering on the Revolutionary War service of Clayborne [Claiborne] Lawson and Benjamin Lawson. The brothers sold warrants to the plaintiff in separate agreements. Warrant No. 7655 for 1000 acres was found in the “military boundary of Kentucky and the northwest territory.” The suit includes the original plat.

Prince Edward County, 1805-030, Alexander Dunlop v. Benjamin Lawson: The plaintiff contracted with his brother to sell 1,666 1/3 acres of land he received for his services in the Revolutionary War. Land Bounty Warrant No. 761 deals with land found in the Virginia military district “northwest of the Ohio River and on the west side of the Scioto River,” as noted on an original plat filed with the suit. These federal lands were reserved solely for the Virginia warrants of veterans of the Continental line.

Greenville County chancery causes are indexed in the Chancery Records Index (CRI) and the original suits are open for research in the Library’s Archives Research Room. Augusta, Fluvanna, Middlesex, and Prince Edward Counties have been indexed, scanned, and are freely available through the CRI. These projects were made possible through the Library of Virginia’s innovative Circuit Court Records Preservation Program (CCRP), a cooperative program between the Library of Virginia and the Virginia Court Clerks Association (VCCA), which seeks to preserve the historic records found in Virginia’s circuit courts.

The Halifax County and Norfolk County chancery causes are currently closed for digital reformatting and will be available in the coming months.

–Callie Freed, Local Records Archivist

]]>http://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box/2016/03/09/a-collection-within-a-collection/feed/0Love Letters in the Archiveshttp://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box/2015/09/30/love-letters-in-the-archives/
http://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box/2015/09/30/love-letters-in-the-archives/#commentsWed, 30 Sep 2015 13:00:37 +0000http://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box/?p=8889
While working on a project involving the Middlesex County Chancery Causes, I noticed a case that was filled with scandal and intrigue. Middlesex Chancery Cause, 1907-033, Andrew Courtney vs. Mary Courtney is a divorce suit in which both parties accuse the other of adultery. Andrew claimed his wife ran off to Connecticut with a married man named Beverly Smith, and Mary responded by claiming that Andrew was guilty of adultery himself.

As evidence, Mary produced several letters written to her husband by various women, one of which included a lock of hair. That letter, dated 30 August 1906 from a Miss Ginny Davis, proclaimed “Here is a peice [sic] of my hair look at it and think of me.”

While it is sad to think that some of the love letters that end up in the archives are the result of divorce suits and romance gone wrong in one way or another, it also proves the quest for love is something that is surely timeless.

The Middlesex Chancery Causes, 1754-1912, are available online through the Chancery Records Index on the Library of Virginia’s Virginia Memory site. The lock of hair reference above has also been scanned.

]]>
While working on a project involving the Middlesex County Chancery Causes, I noticed a case that was filled with scandal and intrigue. Middlesex Chancery Cause, 1907-033, Andrew Courtney vs. Mary Courtney is a divorce suit in which both parties accuse the other of adultery. Andrew claimed his wife ran off to Connecticut with a married man named Beverly Smith, and Mary responded by claiming that Andrew was guilty of adultery himself.

As evidence, Mary produced several letters written to her husband by various women, one of which included a lock of hair. That letter, dated 30 August 1906 from a Miss Ginny Davis, proclaimed “Here is a peice [sic] of my hair look at it and think of me.”

While it is sad to think that some of the love letters that end up in the archives are the result of divorce suits and romance gone wrong in one way or another, it also proves the quest for love is something that is surely timeless.

The Middlesex Chancery Causes, 1754-1912, are available online through the Chancery Records Index on the Library of Virginia’s Virginia Memory site. The lock of hair reference above has also been scanned.

–Mary Dean Carter, Local Records Archival Assistant

]]>http://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box/2015/09/30/love-letters-in-the-archives/feed/0New Images Added to the Lost Records Digital Collectionhttp://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box/2014/09/26/new-images-added-to-the-lost-records-digital-collection/
http://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box/2014/09/26/new-images-added-to-the-lost-records-digital-collection/#commentsFri, 26 Sep 2014 13:00:42 +0000http://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box/?p=8151
Additional document images from counties or incorporated cities classified as “Lost Records Localities” have been added to the Lost Records Localities Digital Collection available on Virginia Memory. The bulk of the additions are copies of wills, deeds, and estate records of members of the Bell family from Buckingham County; these items were used as exhibits in the Nelson County Chancery Cause 1841-071, William Scruggs and wife, etc., versus Rebecca Branch, etc. The wills of Frederick Cabell, Dougald Ferguson, and William Woods–all recorded in Buckingham County and all exhibits in other Nelson County chancery suits–have been added as well. One document from Buckingham County was found in City of Lynchburg court records. It is an apprenticeship indenture dated 1812, made between Clough T. Amos and Betsy Scott, a free African American. Amos was to instruct Scott’s son Wilson “in the art and mystery of a waterman in navigating [the] James river above the falls at the city of Richmond.”

Documents from other Lost Records Localities used as exhibits in Middlesex County chancery suits have been added as well. They include the will of Edward Waller, recorded in Gloucester County; the wills of Patsy Wiatt and James Christian, recorded in King and Queen County; a deed between Henry Cooke and wife to William Taylor, recorded in King and Queen County; and the will and estate … read more »

]]>
Additional document images from counties or incorporated cities classified as “Lost Records Localities” have been added to the Lost Records Localities Digital Collection available on Virginia Memory. The bulk of the additions are copies of wills, deeds, and estate records of members of the Bell family from Buckingham County; these items were used as exhibits in the Nelson County Chancery Cause 1841-071, William Scruggs and wife, etc., versus Rebecca Branch, etc. The wills of Frederick Cabell, Dougald Ferguson, and William Woods–all recorded in Buckingham County and all exhibits in other Nelson County chancery suits–have been added as well. One document from Buckingham County was found in City of Lynchburg court records. It is an apprenticeship indenture dated 1812, made between Clough T. Amos and Betsy Scott, a free African American. Amos was to instruct Scott’s son Wilson “in the art and mystery of a waterman in navigating [the] James river above the falls at the city of Richmond.”

Documents from other Lost Records Localities used as exhibits in Middlesex County chancery suits have been added as well. They include the will of Edward Waller, recorded in Gloucester County; the wills of Patsy Wiatt and James Christian, recorded in King and Queen County; a deed between Henry Cooke and wife to William Taylor, recorded in King and Queen County; and the will and estate accounts of John Stiff, recorded in Hanover County. Copies of two chancery causes heard in King and Queen County, Francis Wilson versus Heirs of Fanny C.C. Christian, etc., 1859, and Etheline Christian versus Fanny C.C. Christian, 1855, found in Middlesex County Chancery Causes 1881-013, have been added to the lost records digital collection also.

Other records will be added to the digital collection periodically as our archivists continue to identify “lost” documents in the records they process. Be sure to check back for future updates or watch the blog for announcements. For more information on the Lost Records Localities Digital Collection, see the earlier blog post “Finding What Was Lost.”

The romantic landscape may seem ambiguous in 2013, but courtship in 19th-century Virginia was no different. Think those text messages are hard to decipher? Try reading an 1850s love letter full of rigid social etiquette. Dating and its inherent potential for rejection have always been hard. A letter found amongst chancery papers from Middlesex County attests to the fact that romantic rejection can happen to anyone, regardless of the time period.

One woman who had no use for ambiguity when it came to rejecting a would-be suitor was L. B. Powers. On 26 September 1849, she responded to Henry Sears’ letter requesting the “privilege of waiting on” her. She was to the point, not bothering to spare feelings, and offered up her reasons for refusing his courtship:

“I have no objection of your waiting on me but as you are in a hurry for a wife I think it is best for you to dispense with your conversation as I think there is no earthly chance of my agreeing with your proposal for it is something I never intend to give my consent to marry a man without I love them therefore I think it is best for us both to dispense with our writings and conversation as I cannot love you.

The romantic landscape may seem ambiguous in 2013, but courtship in 19th-century Virginia was no different. Think those text messages are hard to decipher? Try reading an 1850s love letter full of rigid social etiquette. Dating and its inherent potential for rejection have always been hard. A letter found amongst chancery papers from Middlesex County attests to the fact that romantic rejection can happen to anyone, regardless of the time period.

One woman who had no use for ambiguity when it came to rejecting a would-be suitor was L. B. Powers. On 26 September 1849, she responded to Henry Sears’ letter requesting the “privilege of waiting on” her. She was to the point, not bothering to spare feelings, and offered up her reasons for refusing his courtship:

“I have no objection of your waiting on me but as you are in a hurry for a wife I think it is best for you to dispense with your conversation as I think there is no earthly chance of my agreeing with your proposal for it is something I never intend to give my consent to marry a man without I love them therefore I think it is best for us both to dispense with our writings and conversation as I cannot love you.

I do not think that my age will suit yours not by any means, and I do not feel myself capable of becoming a mother-in-law either. I think it is best as I cannot love you for you not to have anything more to say on the subject.

I have told you my objections & one is I cannot love you the other is I know that my age will not suit yours and the last I do not like to be a mother-in-law.”

Unfortunately the only evidence of the courtship between Sears and Powers is this letter that long outlived their relationship. Who was L. B. Powers and why couldn’t she find it in herself to love Henry Sears? Was it because she was not ready to be a mother to someone else’s child? (The term “mother-in-law” used in the letter is an outdated form of “stepmother”). Was he just too old? Did he have some unattractive facial feature or personality trait? We will most likely never know the answers to these questions.

So why did this letter survive when their relationship did not? Maybe Mr. Sears had business in the Middlesex County courthouse and left behind the letter spurning his proposal. The name Henry Sears appears in numerous chancery causes from Middlesex County, but this letter did not clearly fit with any of them. The letter remains an interesting item in its own right and has now become part of the Middlesex County Records, 1760-1903, which house various series and items transferred from the Middlesex County circuit court, including another letter to Henry Sears written by Edward C. Kidd in 1840 describing work on a coffee plantation and his trip to Havana, Cuba.

The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce that digital images for the Middlesex County Chancery Causes, 1754-1912, are now available online through the Chancery Records Index on the LVA’s Virginia Memory site. Because they rely so heavily on the testimony of witness, chancery causes contain a wealth of historical and genealogical information and are especially useful when researching local, state, social, or legal history. They often contain correspondence, property lists (including slaves), lists of heirs, and vital statistics that are especially helpful in documenting the African American experience, family history, and Southern business and labor history. Following are a few suits of interest found in the collection.

The Middlesex County chancery causes contain many suits illustrating the experiences of African Americans in the tidewater region. In Simon Laughlin vs. Jacob Valentine, 1773-005, Laughlin sues for the recovery of funds he spent on boat and horse hire while traveling to a prison in Snow Hill, Maryland, looking for a runaway slave. In 1858, Elizabeth Thornton initiated two suits in attempt to get rid of unwanted slaves. In Elizabeth Thornton vs. Margaret Thornton, 1858-012, Thornton claimed that Jane had a “very bad disposition” and had become “almost worthless.” Jane supposedly was a “very bad girl, a notorious rouge,” and “very idle.” After successfully selling Jane, Thornton then sought to get rid … read more »

]]>

The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce that digital images for the Middlesex County Chancery Causes, 1754-1912, are now available online through the Chancery Records Index on the LVA’s Virginia Memory site. Because they rely so heavily on the testimony of witness, chancery causes contain a wealth of historical and genealogical information and are especially useful when researching local, state, social, or legal history. They often contain correspondence, property lists (including slaves), lists of heirs, and vital statistics that are especially helpful in documenting the African American experience, family history, and Southern business and labor history. Following are a few suits of interest found in the collection.

The Middlesex County chancery causes contain many suits illustrating the experiences of African Americans in the tidewater region. In Simon Laughlin vs. Jacob Valentine, 1773-005, Laughlin sues for the recovery of funds he spent on boat and horse hire while traveling to a prison in Snow Hill, Maryland, looking for a runaway slave. In 1858, Elizabeth Thornton initiated two suits in attempt to get rid of unwanted slaves. In Elizabeth Thornton vs. Margaret Thornton, 1858-012, Thornton claimed that Jane had a “very bad disposition” and had become “almost worthless.” Jane supposedly was a “very bad girl, a notorious rouge,” and “very idle.” After successfully selling Jane, Thornton then sought to get rid of Lucy, aged 45, and her children James, William, and Daniel – Elizabeth I. Thornton vs. Catharine Thornton, etc., 1859-018. Lucy had “become so unmanageable that she [was] wholly worthless.”

Slaves also sought out the Middlesex County Circuit Court in efforts to obtain their freedom. In Agga, etc. vs. Executor of Randolph Segar, etc., 1815-003, several slaves sue for their freedom after being emancipated by the 1795 will of Randolph Segar, whose executor claimed the slaves needed to be sold to settle the estate’s debts. In 1843, Betsy Hord and her two sons were held in debtors prison and on their way to the auction block to settle her late husband’s debts. In Betsy Hord, etc. vs. Thomas Jones, sheriff, etc., 1846-002, Betsy Hord claimed that she was a free woman, having been emancipated by deed by her husband on 16 July 1842. She was granted an injunction halting the sale, as long as she was able to pay her husband’s debts.

The Middlesex County chancery causes are also a valuable source for family and social history. Correspondence in these cases provides detailed accounts of life in the 18th and 19th centuries. For example, Administrator of Elliott P. Jones, vs. Laurence Bayne, etc., 1884-014, contains several letters discussing the affairs of the Jones and Calef families and also airs their views on race and slavery. On 15 January 1845, Daniel J. Calef wrote to his mother about advising his Aunt Sally Calef “to dispose of her nap heads or Blacks,” and he went on to write, “you can’t imagine how the slaves want waching [sic]. Everything has to be put under lock and key or they would steel it. They are a pac of unprophetable servents [sic].” On 26 February 1860, Elliot P. Jones wrote to his cousin about the approaching Civil War—Virginia is “now arming and preparing herself for active war…. I hope to God we may not have to use our men, but if the North is determined to force upon us a Black Republican President, then I am willing, ready, and anxious for the conflict.”

During the months of October and November, Local Records archivists delivered presentations on chancery suits to the Tazewell County Public Library, the Scott County Rotary Club, the Beautiful Older People in Dinwiddie County, and the Middlesex County Museum and Historical Society. They shared with the attendees what chancery causes are and how they are useful not only for genealogy research but for learning local history as well.

The archivists offered numerous chancery suits as examples such as a Dinwiddie County case that involved the descendants of a free African-American doctor who also owned slaves; Tazewell County suits that referenced conflicts between the first settlers of Tazewell County and Native Americans; post-Civil War era Scott County suits that brought to light lingering bitterness between pro-Union and anti-Confederacy residents; and Middlesex County suits that showed slaves suing for their freedom. The archivists informed the attendees how they could access their locality’s chancery causes through the Chancery Records Index. The response to the presentations by attendees was very positive. Laurie Roberts, the director of the Tazewell County Public Library, commented: “You gave our audience an appreciation of the reflection of our social history we can find in this treasure trove of material and inspired us to delve into the records.”

If you are interested in scheduling a presentation by one of the Library’s Local Records archivists, please contact … read more »

]]>

During the months of October and November, Local Records archivists delivered presentations on chancery suits to the Tazewell County Public Library, the Scott County Rotary Club, the Beautiful Older People in Dinwiddie County, and the Middlesex County Museum and Historical Society. They shared with the attendees what chancery causes are and how they are useful not only for genealogy research but for learning local history as well.

The archivists offered numerous chancery suits as examples such as a Dinwiddie County case that involved the descendants of a free African-American doctor who also owned slaves; Tazewell County suits that referenced conflicts between the first settlers of Tazewell County and Native Americans; post-Civil War era Scott County suits that brought to light lingering bitterness between pro-Union and anti-Confederacy residents; and Middlesex County suits that showed slaves suing for their freedom. The archivists informed the attendees how they could access their locality’s chancery causes through the Chancery Records Index. The response to the presentations by attendees was very positive. Laurie Roberts, the director of the Tazewell County Public Library, commented: “You gave our audience an appreciation of the reflection of our social history we can find in this treasure trove of material and inspired us to delve into the records.”

If you are interested in scheduling a presentation by one of the Library’s Local Records archivists, please contact Greg Crawford, gregory.crawford@lva.virginia.gov or 804-371-2127.

Local Records archivists recently travelled to the Middlesex County Circuit Court Clerk’s office to transfer their pre-1913 chancery causes to the Library of Virginia as well as identify a large number of volumes stored in a small room separate from the main records room. While one group pulled the boxes of chancery causes, another group conducted an inventory of the volumes. They identified permanent records such as court minute books, bond books, business records, election records, and fiduciary records that dated from the 1790s to mid-1900s.

The archivists also located two boxes of early 1800s chancery causes that had been pulled from their original drawers in 1938 by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) as part of its inventorying of courthouses. This was a significant discovery given that much of Middlesex County’s loose records were destroyed during the Civil War. They were transferred to LVA along with the aforementioned pre-1913 chancery causes to be processed and indexed. Budget permitting, they will be digitally scanned and the images will be added to the Middlesex County chancery presently found in the Chancery Records Index.

The archivists also identified records that are nonpermanent, mainly printed material, of which the circuit court clerk can dispose. Moreover, the archivists identified volumes in need of conservation treatment including the county’s Free Negro Register, a record of great historical importance to African American … read more »

]]>

Local Records archivists recently travelled to the Middlesex County Circuit Court Clerk’s office to transfer their pre-1913 chancery causes to the Library of Virginia as well as identify a large number of volumes stored in a small room separate from the main records room. While one group pulled the boxes of chancery causes, another group conducted an inventory of the volumes. They identified permanent records such as court minute books, bond books, business records, election records, and fiduciary records that dated from the 1790s to mid-1900s.

The archivists also located two boxes of early 1800s chancery causes that had been pulled from their original drawers in 1938 by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) as part of its inventorying of courthouses. This was a significant discovery given that much of Middlesex County’s loose records were destroyed during the Civil War. They were transferred to LVA along with the aforementioned pre-1913 chancery causes to be processed and indexed. Budget permitting, they will be digitally scanned and the images will be added to the Middlesex County chancery presently found in the Chancery Records Index.

The archivists also identified records that are nonpermanent, mainly printed material, of which the circuit court clerk can dispose. Moreover, the archivists identified volumes in need of conservation treatment including the county’s Free Negro Register, a record of great historical importance to African American history and genealogists across the United States. The clerk’s office will be able to use this information to apply for future conservation grants through the Circuit Court Records Preservation Program (CCRP).

The Library of Virginia is able to provide these services to Virginia’s Circuit Court Clerks thanks to the CCRP which provides resources to help preserve and make accessible permanent circuit court records. The program awards grants to the commonwealth’s circuit court clerks to help them address the needs of the records housed in their localities.

The CCRP also provides resources needed to process and house the circuit court records that are transferred to the State Archives for safekeeping and increased access; as well as track, duplicate and maintain circuit court microfilm stored in the Library’s media vault.